California homeowners made more money in equity than workers made in income(twitter.com)
twitter.com
California homeowners made more money in equity than workers made in income
https://twitter.com/samdman95/status/1403466439688790016
57 comments
Ditto most greater London owners.
I'm looking for a property in London currently and, only today, came across a 1 bedroom apartment that sold in 2001 for £86,000 but is now on the market for £800,000 ($1.1M USD). That's 12%/yr annualized.
This example is extreme, but not by much.
And let's not forget, those that took out mortgages 20 years ago have been able to refinance to lower interest rates as they fell.
This example is extreme, but not by much.
And let's not forget, those that took out mortgages 20 years ago have been able to refinance to lower interest rates as they fell.
There was a property in a neighbouring suburb to where I live that is on a main road about 500m downwind from the city wastewater plant and bordering an industrial estate with a concrete plant that sold recently for 1.4m AUD.
I'm assuming they got a permit to subdivide which made it more valuable, but still an insane price.
The land cost $38k in 1988 and it was sold a couple of times in the last five years in the 500/600k range. For the boomer generation that bought years ago, they're laughing. Not so much the millennials unless they can inherit these overpriced properties.
I'm assuming they got a permit to subdivide which made it more valuable, but still an insane price.
The land cost $38k in 1988 and it was sold a couple of times in the last five years in the 500/600k range. For the boomer generation that bought years ago, they're laughing. Not so much the millennials unless they can inherit these overpriced properties.
This is not exactly surprising given how little workers are paid.
Isn't this sort of a strange comparison, though: income, which is liquid, vs equity, which usually isn't?
Since most homeowners live in their investment and prices have risen almost everywhere, there's no way to cash out on the investment and remain housed.
You would have to sell and gamble on renting until a market correction, or moving to a cheaper housing market, or own multiple properties to be able to actually cash in on this equity earning
.. whereas of course income is just cash
Maybe I'm missing something
Since most homeowners live in their investment and prices have risen almost everywhere, there's no way to cash out on the investment and remain housed.
You would have to sell and gamble on renting until a market correction, or moving to a cheaper housing market, or own multiple properties to be able to actually cash in on this equity earning
.. whereas of course income is just cash
Maybe I'm missing something
Sure but the point is these already wealthy people gain all this wealth for doing literally nothing, while the people who slave away and actually keep the economy going work hard all year for much, much less. And then of course workers end up having to hand most of that "cash" directly back to the land-owning classes for rent (among other things).
Homeowners could cash out on their investments and remain housed by getting jobs and renting, like the rest of us, which of course they won't do, because they recognize how exploitative the system is and that they earn more just sitting on property.
Anyway you look at it homeowners come out way ahead every time, for doing absolutely nothing.
Homeowners could cash out on their investments and remain housed by getting jobs and renting, like the rest of us, which of course they won't do, because they recognize how exploitative the system is and that they earn more just sitting on property.
Anyway you look at it homeowners come out way ahead every time, for doing absolutely nothing.
The vast majority of homeowners work... You know that right?
I never said they didn't... The point is they don't have to hand over a majority of their income to pay someone else's mortgage. Even if home prices stagnate in their area and they can't sell for years, they get to keep a roof over their head for much, much less than someone renting a comparable place.
More likely is that their property values are going up somewhat, so what they spend on property taxes/upkeep is likely preserved as equity. Renters pay more and keep nothing in the end.
More likely is that their property values are going up somewhat, so what they spend on property taxes/upkeep is likely preserved as equity. Renters pay more and keep nothing in the end.
Well I hand over about $12000/yr to pay for banker's interests, most of which I assume goes to pay for other people's mortgages.
> Anyway you look at it homeowners come out way ahead every time, for doing absolutely nothing.
Homeowners in less demanded areas do not.
Homeowners in less demanded areas do not.
I mean sure, and some "workers" make 500k/year, but these are obviously exceptions to the rule when we've established that California homeowners made more money in equity on average than workers made in income.
Also pretty sure there aren't many places in California where owning a home is such a liability that your annual losses would exceed those of one renting a comparable property. You might still have to work, but you're still ahead of someone who has to work and pay rent.
Also pretty sure there aren't many places in California where owning a home is such a liability that your annual losses would exceed those of one renting a comparable property. You might still have to work, but you're still ahead of someone who has to work and pay rent.
[deleted]
They reliably come ahead of the laborers in those same areas
[deleted]
You can easily borrow against equity. You can skimp on saving for retirement hoping to move to Montana and live off the extra equity.
Note to Montanans: just a random example of a place with lower than CA real estate. In reality after ten years in Bay Area most people cannot tolerate a cold winter nor a hot summer. I think Mexico or “that state I grew up in” are more popular. Although I have cousins that moved to Colorado and Texas after fifty years in California.
“Equity” is also theoretical until you try to cash in on it: they say your house could sell for $1MM, but you have to find a buyer before you can get that equity out and spend it. You may very well have to sell it for (a lot) less. It’s also a liability every year when the tax man comes, because he charges based on the “imaginary” number, not what an actual person will actually pay for it.
The second part isn't exactly true in California. Thanks to Prop 13 homeowners' property taxes usually don't increase in proportion to their value.
As mentioned by the other poster, prop 13 makes the surprise tax bill situation moot. And in this current market you will not have to sell for less. My sister in law recently accepted an all cash offer for more than asking price. Made about $500k in 4 years.
You can access the equity with a second mortgage, a home equity line of credit, or a cash-out refinance.
Buying and selling a house isn't that much harder or riskier than changing jobs, but it's a little besides the point.
We are in a form of inflation.
The 'middle class' are the problem here.
Why?
Because they think 'they're making bank'.
What they don't realize is that 'everyone above them' on the scale, is making even 'bigger bank'.
The $3M home owner realizes this, but also not quite how much the $25M home owner is also screwing him.
This is a 'class warfare ponzi scheme' where everyone up the chain is screwing everyone below them.
The problem is that it's politically untenable to take away something from the middle class, they are voters.
If working class and poorer people coordinated their voting power, the kind of Fed policies we have would be different.
We are in a form of inflation.
The 'middle class' are the problem here.
Why?
Because they think 'they're making bank'.
What they don't realize is that 'everyone above them' on the scale, is making even 'bigger bank'.
The $3M home owner realizes this, but also not quite how much the $25M home owner is also screwing him.
This is a 'class warfare ponzi scheme' where everyone up the chain is screwing everyone below them.
The problem is that it's politically untenable to take away something from the middle class, they are voters.
If working class and poorer people coordinated their voting power, the kind of Fed policies we have would be different.
They didn’t “make” anything, though perhaps when they sell they will make some money, unless everyone else decides to sell at the same time. It’s just a game of musical chairs. They only one making anything is the federal reserve; they are literally making money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
We need this reform yesterday. It is absurd how much you get taxed on actual work, but so little on land speculation and rent extraction.
We need this reform yesterday. It is absurd how much you get taxed on actual work, but so little on land speculation and rent extraction.
That immediately fires back at the poorest who can only afford to rent - good chunk of the tax will be passed onto them.
It doesn't work like that. Landlords already charge the highest possible rent. If they didn't, you wouldn't be allowed to complain about high rents because current rent prices are artificially held down by landlords.
The tax is cutting into profits of landlords that were derived from the value of the land. They still end up charging the same rent.
The tax is cutting into profits of landlords that were derived from the value of the land. They still end up charging the same rent.
this is wrong, because land is inelastic.
you can tax land value at 100% and there will be no less land.
you can tax land value at 100% and there will be no less land.
Think of the poor!
If that hasn’t convinced you, think of the children!
If I can identify even one person who might be marginally worse off by a particular policy, we definitely can’t do it. That’s what the founding fathers would want!
/s
If that hasn’t convinced you, think of the children!
If I can identify even one person who might be marginally worse off by a particular policy, we definitely can’t do it. That’s what the founding fathers would want!
/s
Is there a way to prevent people being taxed out of their homes?
For those that cannot afford it an option to defer some amount of the taxes until sale is one common proposal.
Myself I don’t favor this option and think if you can’t afford the land tax on your property then you’re making very poor use of that land and the tax is working exactly as intended if it either encourages you to downsize to another place or redevelop your property into multiple units (for example). You can also take a loan on your property to pay the tax that is repaid from sale of the property when you do decide to move or your pass away. I don’t think people should get special favorable treatment just because they got somewhere first, it’s awfully discriminatory.
Myself I don’t favor this option and think if you can’t afford the land tax on your property then you’re making very poor use of that land and the tax is working exactly as intended if it either encourages you to downsize to another place or redevelop your property into multiple units (for example). You can also take a loan on your property to pay the tax that is repaid from sale of the property when you do decide to move or your pass away. I don’t think people should get special favorable treatment just because they got somewhere first, it’s awfully discriminatory.
Yeah, the mindset behind a (georgist, i.e. high) LVT is that land is a public good with an opportunity cost. It is a pigouvian tax against speculation, hoarding, and underutilization.
Humans are sentimental creatures though and "grandma has to sell her home" is a powerful image.
I think a good compromise, that would also allow Prop 13 to be phased out for good, is to allow primary residences below a certain value to deduct taxes against the home value up to the limit (ie defer payment until the person dies, then the estate settles the debt, most likely out of selling the home) and at that point not owe more. That way grandma never has to leave her home prematurely, society still captures the lost value of underutilized land somewhat, and there is no ridiculousness with commercial properties, inheritances, very wealthy people paying no taxes, etc.
Humans are sentimental creatures though and "grandma has to sell her home" is a powerful image.
I think a good compromise, that would also allow Prop 13 to be phased out for good, is to allow primary residences below a certain value to deduct taxes against the home value up to the limit (ie defer payment until the person dies, then the estate settles the debt, most likely out of selling the home) and at that point not owe more. That way grandma never has to leave her home prematurely, society still captures the lost value of underutilized land somewhat, and there is no ridiculousness with commercial properties, inheritances, very wealthy people paying no taxes, etc.
For some reason when there is a bailout for everyone from the poorest grandma to the richest investors on the planet, people worry about grandma the most. We can always arrange a bailout for vulnerable people, that's not the problem but everyone who can afford the taxes insists that they should get low property taxes because grandma cant afford them.
Land speculation is less taxed than, say, equities gains because of 1031 exchanges and forgiveness of the first $X of capital gains on a home sale.
I don't see how "rent extraction" is less taxed relative to other activities aside from depreciation, net income, etc. which is not unique to renting. Why is rent extraction favored in the tax code?
Actual work has little risk. If I don't show up in the office today they won't pay me for today. If I own property, in contrast, it can go down in value. Also, I probably have to pay to maintain it.
I don't see how "rent extraction" is less taxed relative to other activities aside from depreciation, net income, etc. which is not unique to renting. Why is rent extraction favored in the tax code?
Actual work has little risk. If I don't show up in the office today they won't pay me for today. If I own property, in contrast, it can go down in value. Also, I probably have to pay to maintain it.
>Why is rent extraction favored in the tax code?
Renting is considered a business. You can deduct interest, maintenance expenses, etc...
Individuals cannot do that.
>Actual work has little risk.
So does waiting for prices to go up in a city. And this is the key - you just wait. You don't do any work whatsoever. You just wait for economic conditions nearby to improve and then take your share of it by charging higher and higher rents just because you have monopolized the usage of your land. You don't have to contribute literally anything to the nearby economy, but can still benefit from it.
>If I own property, in contrast, it can go down in value.
Property = land + buildings. This is a tax on the land, not the building value. In a LVT scheme, the value of the land goes towards 0, and the share of the property value due to the building increases.
> Also, I probably have to pay to maintain it.
You maintain the building, not the land. Making profits on building would not change.
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progr...
Is a good review of these ideas.
Renting is considered a business. You can deduct interest, maintenance expenses, etc...
Individuals cannot do that.
>Actual work has little risk.
So does waiting for prices to go up in a city. And this is the key - you just wait. You don't do any work whatsoever. You just wait for economic conditions nearby to improve and then take your share of it by charging higher and higher rents just because you have monopolized the usage of your land. You don't have to contribute literally anything to the nearby economy, but can still benefit from it.
>If I own property, in contrast, it can go down in value.
Property = land + buildings. This is a tax on the land, not the building value. In a LVT scheme, the value of the land goes towards 0, and the share of the property value due to the building increases.
> Also, I probably have to pay to maintain it.
You maintain the building, not the land. Making profits on building would not change.
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progr...
Is a good review of these ideas.
As I've said quite a few times before, with no straight answer given: How does one assess the value of land? Was is the basis or seed value for a given figure?
One solution would be to have desired levels of zoning and base taxes on desired level of zoning of the plot. Each level of zoning would have a per m^2 value and is assessed for the entire neighborhood.
For example, you start with detached single family home zoning. As it is not very dense the rate will be very low so that it is affordable. Once house prices go up in value and row houses and duplexes become viable you raise the desired level of zoning so that duplexes and row houses have the minimal tax burden. Next step would be x stories of apartments. Again the tax is set so that x story apartment buildings have the smallest tax burden per unit. There would be a tax burden per unit (2 different rates for houses and apartments) for the neighborhood on which the actual zoning prices are based on.
E.g. One apartment pays 5k means zoning for 10 apartments will charge $50k. You can still build a single family home if you can afford that tax. Most won't.
This forces popular neighborhoods to provide more housing and punishes land owners that do not improve the value of the property built on top of the land.
For example, you start with detached single family home zoning. As it is not very dense the rate will be very low so that it is affordable. Once house prices go up in value and row houses and duplexes become viable you raise the desired level of zoning so that duplexes and row houses have the minimal tax burden. Next step would be x stories of apartments. Again the tax is set so that x story apartment buildings have the smallest tax burden per unit. There would be a tax burden per unit (2 different rates for houses and apartments) for the neighborhood on which the actual zoning prices are based on.
E.g. One apartment pays 5k means zoning for 10 apartments will charge $50k. You can still build a single family home if you can afford that tax. Most won't.
This forces popular neighborhoods to provide more housing and punishes land owners that do not improve the value of the property built on top of the land.
This already happens. Look into how cities and states both in the US and around the world already value land separately from capital (or improvements) value as part of property tax.
I already have. Most of them are black boxes. For example, the county assessor will put the assessed value of a house at $2,000,000 when it was $800,000 five years ago. Where are they pulling this number from? All of this seems like speculation. Another thing to point out is that some states/localities use a mill rate. They'll set tax at x dollars per thousand of assessed value on the house. Where are they getting the x from? What's the difference between the assessed value and the purchase price and why should there be a difference?
With land, the issue is the same. Even though improvements aren't factored in to the value the same way they are with property tax, what makes one parcel land more valuable than the other? Such a value isn't determined by a linear relationship. So where would one get the number from?
Here is the last conversation I had about the topic. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27032163
With land, the issue is the same. Even though improvements aren't factored in to the value the same way they are with property tax, what makes one parcel land more valuable than the other? Such a value isn't determined by a linear relationship. So where would one get the number from?
Here is the last conversation I had about the topic. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27032163
You can get estimates on the price of land in one of two ways:
- look at comparable empty lots that are sold. Even in big cities there are empty lots sold.
- look at the purchase price of buildings + land and subtract out the construction cost of the building
You can also combine the above, e.g. look at two similar buildings with similar construction costs built in two different places to infer the relative price of land in each.
You can get a pretty good estimate from the above techniques. OFHEO supplies such estimates.
> what makes someone's land more valuable than the other?
Like any other good, people bid on it and so a price is set. Having land allows you to build a building or store so things like zoning laws, demographics, income of people, foot traffic, nearby amenities, these all contribute to the value of land. Land in sunny Miami Beach is worth more than land sitting atop a superfund site somewhere in frozen Michigan. Downtown land in San Francisco is worth more than farm land in Iowa. The reason for this is you can make more money with land in one place than another, even if you need to invest in structure to make that income stream a reality.
- look at comparable empty lots that are sold. Even in big cities there are empty lots sold.
- look at the purchase price of buildings + land and subtract out the construction cost of the building
You can also combine the above, e.g. look at two similar buildings with similar construction costs built in two different places to infer the relative price of land in each.
You can get a pretty good estimate from the above techniques. OFHEO supplies such estimates.
> what makes someone's land more valuable than the other?
Like any other good, people bid on it and so a price is set. Having land allows you to build a building or store so things like zoning laws, demographics, income of people, foot traffic, nearby amenities, these all contribute to the value of land. Land in sunny Miami Beach is worth more than land sitting atop a superfund site somewhere in frozen Michigan. Downtown land in San Francisco is worth more than farm land in Iowa. The reason for this is you can make more money with land in one place than another, even if you need to invest in structure to make that income stream a reality.
To your first point: You're still getting an estimate, not a value. My question is what makes a particular plot of land in a particular area worth a particular amount of money? I mean the actual value, not a "value" determined by proxy of one's nearest neighbor. If the assessor is not pulling a number out of his hat, where is he getting the dollar amount from? As you pointed out there are empty plots of land with no owner. Where does the assessed value of empty unoccupied land come from? And what makes that assessed value the "correct" one for the purposes of LVT? (Note:assessed value is not necessarily the same as purchase price)
To your second point: You understand that land has differing value/utility to each purchaser or potential purchaser. LVT does not recognize this. It only assumes that if you have more land, you should be taxed more. The farmer would obviously suffer in comparison to the city dweller.
However, as a critique of your point, few San Franciscans make actual money off their land or real estate (landlords excluded). The fact that they *can* make money off their land, does not mean they are. To be taxed as though one were making money off of land is to use a legal fiction to justify a particular policy. It doesn't solve an inefficiency in land distribution but creates one.
To your second point: You understand that land has differing value/utility to each purchaser or potential purchaser. LVT does not recognize this. It only assumes that if you have more land, you should be taxed more. The farmer would obviously suffer in comparison to the city dweller.
However, as a critique of your point, few San Franciscans make actual money off their land or real estate (landlords excluded). The fact that they *can* make money off their land, does not mean they are. To be taxed as though one were making money off of land is to use a legal fiction to justify a particular policy. It doesn't solve an inefficiency in land distribution but creates one.
Yeah, but GP thought his question was a killer retort that would end the argument in his favor, while simultaneously demonstrating brilliance to the Hacker News crowd.
Did you really have to take away all that with a pithy explanation of reality? Why not just let him have his day in the sun?
Did you really have to take away all that with a pithy explanation of reality? Why not just let him have his day in the sun?
I'm here to get an answer. Not to win an imaginary argument. But I guess it takes one to know one if you think the latter is what I'm here for.
> Renting is considered a business.
So, renting is not favored over other businesses in the tax code? Cool, then people will invest in renting to the extent that they can make a better profit there relative to other business endeavors. This seems sane to me.
>> Actual work has little risk.
> So does waiting for prices to go up in a city.
Have you ever watched NYC unilaterally and without warning do massive homeless shelter relocations into your neighborhood in the middle of a pandemic? Or noticed that sometimes there are chemical contaminants discovered under towns and the drinking water can be full of lead? Or seen the quality of the local public schools drop over time? Or read that hurricanes and earthquakes and riots sometimes level everything? There is risk in owning property.
Sure, some of that risk can be offloaded to insurance. But witness half of Napa is trying to rebuild at the same time on account of widespread wildfires. The insurance only somewhat addresses systemic risk.
Thank you for responding. I will read the introduction that you suggested.
I will echo the peer responses that I don't see how one values abstract plots of land independent of their current usage. But I am content to watch that discussion unfold instead of continuing on that topic in this thread.
So, renting is not favored over other businesses in the tax code? Cool, then people will invest in renting to the extent that they can make a better profit there relative to other business endeavors. This seems sane to me.
>> Actual work has little risk.
> So does waiting for prices to go up in a city.
Have you ever watched NYC unilaterally and without warning do massive homeless shelter relocations into your neighborhood in the middle of a pandemic? Or noticed that sometimes there are chemical contaminants discovered under towns and the drinking water can be full of lead? Or seen the quality of the local public schools drop over time? Or read that hurricanes and earthquakes and riots sometimes level everything? There is risk in owning property.
Sure, some of that risk can be offloaded to insurance. But witness half of Napa is trying to rebuild at the same time on account of widespread wildfires. The insurance only somewhat addresses systemic risk.
Thank you for responding. I will read the introduction that you suggested.
I will echo the peer responses that I don't see how one values abstract plots of land independent of their current usage. But I am content to watch that discussion unfold instead of continuing on that topic in this thread.
Is there much risk of it going down?
There's a fair amount of effort on the part of the government to ensure that the price continues to rise
There's a fair amount of effort on the part of the government to ensure that the price continues to rise
Rising asset prices are literally Federal policy. I think the official goal recommended by the IMF is 3% annually.
My uber driver in Los Angeles was telling me about how his parents bought a house in the seventies in the west side and now it's worth it a million or more and he inherited it and wasn't sure what to do with it.
My Uber driver was a millionaire by equity.
My Uber driver was a millionaire by equity.
If he has a million dollars in net value then he's just a millionaire, that's it.
Most 'millionaires' are that way. It's not like you're only a millionaire until you have a million in the bank.
Most 'millionaires' are that way. It's not like you're only a millionaire until you have a million in the bank.
Well his job is inherently mobile. Living in it seems like a good option.
I think any useful definition of millionaire involves either having a million dollars of income over multiple years or being able to spend a million dollars without it affecting your lifestyle.
Why is that important to you?
An illiquid millionaire still has access to the lowest interest rate capital, compared to someone that has no assets or assets valued much less. There is still a distinction between someone that can even invest in private equity funds, versus someone that would either be legally barred or not able to make the minimum investment.
An illiquid millionaire still has access to the lowest interest rate capital, compared to someone that has no assets or assets valued much less. There is still a distinction between someone that can even invest in private equity funds, versus someone that would either be legally barred or not able to make the minimum investment.
Because having title to a home worth a million dollars does not give you the distinction of being able to invest in PE funds. A 50+ year old married couple that earned incomes around the median and set some money aside in their 401k might have a million or two million dollars of “total net worth”, but it does not mean they can become venture capitalists or develop land or go out and buy a Ferrari. They’re probably still shopping at Costco and flying economy class.
In common vernacular, a “millionaire”, at least when I was growing up, meant someone who could afford luxuries that almost all could not. And while a secure retirement may be available to a select few, that was not the kind of luxury you would refer to when labeling someone a “millionaire”.
I would say describing someone’s wealth in terms of what they can afford to risk, or what they can afford not to worry about is most useful.
You can start with shelter, food, loss of income, health, retirement, legal, etc. By the time one can (per my judgment) start affording discretionary luxuries or investing in PE funds, you should probably have your legal risks covered, which involves you having enough assets or cash flow to not have to work and simultaneously pay lawyers.
In common vernacular, a “millionaire”, at least when I was growing up, meant someone who could afford luxuries that almost all could not. And while a secure retirement may be available to a select few, that was not the kind of luxury you would refer to when labeling someone a “millionaire”.
I would say describing someone’s wealth in terms of what they can afford to risk, or what they can afford not to worry about is most useful.
You can start with shelter, food, loss of income, health, retirement, legal, etc. By the time one can (per my judgment) start affording discretionary luxuries or investing in PE funds, you should probably have your legal risks covered, which involves you having enough assets or cash flow to not have to work and simultaneously pay lawyers.
> A 50+ year old married couple that earned incomes around the median and set some money aside in their 401k might have a million or two million dollars of “total net worth”, but it does not mean they can become venture capitalists or develop land or go out and buy a Ferrari.
But they could if they wanted to, by borrowing against their 401k at nearly the lowest interest rates possible.
I want a simple term that describes people that can and can't do that. Millionaire is it as there is a clear distinction between people that have zero and negative net worth, and people with one million dollars in assets that can be borrowed against.
> a “millionaire”, at least when I was growing up, meant someone who could afford luxuries that almost all could not.
Well that's inflation for you. I think you're the one that will need to pick another word. My experience with the luxury concept is that people imagine things are more expensive or unattainable than they are. Like, there is a kind of "commoner's luxury" which is catered towards via leasing and borrowing and there is no way to distinguish which person has actually afforded the lifestyle or simply assumed even more debt. The "millionaire" colloquialism seems to have spawned generations of posers with nearly zero net worth, surrounding themselves with the image of luxuries, which even the illiquid farmer with millions of dollars of land can afford.
But they could if they wanted to, by borrowing against their 401k at nearly the lowest interest rates possible.
I want a simple term that describes people that can and can't do that. Millionaire is it as there is a clear distinction between people that have zero and negative net worth, and people with one million dollars in assets that can be borrowed against.
> a “millionaire”, at least when I was growing up, meant someone who could afford luxuries that almost all could not.
Well that's inflation for you. I think you're the one that will need to pick another word. My experience with the luxury concept is that people imagine things are more expensive or unattainable than they are. Like, there is a kind of "commoner's luxury" which is catered towards via leasing and borrowing and there is no way to distinguish which person has actually afforded the lifestyle or simply assumed even more debt. The "millionaire" colloquialism seems to have spawned generations of posers with nearly zero net worth, surrounding themselves with the image of luxuries, which even the illiquid farmer with millions of dollars of land can afford.
[deleted]
As a person from a blue collar family that's been broke as hell my whole life having a single million dollars would be insane and almost unimaginable to me. Lol
I think most of the working class feels the same way which is like 50 to 80% of the country.
They don't really have a fined grained classification for millionaire beyond having a million bucks.
I think most of the working class feels the same way which is like 50 to 80% of the country.
They don't really have a fined grained classification for millionaire beyond having a million bucks.
Does equity in this context refer to the increase in the value of the whole home, or just the increase in the value that is paid into the mortgage?
If the former, duh? If the latter, wouldn't that just mean homeowners make more in general because many afforded the down payment to begin with?
If the former, duh? If the latter, wouldn't that just mean homeowners make more in general because many afforded the down payment to begin with?